Iran Super Thread- Merged

[HavokFour]

OK...

Trump says Iran has 48 hours to make deal or U.S. will unleash ‘hell’

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mideas...-48-hours-to-make-deal-or-us-will-unleash-hell/

Nice of him to dress it up for the Easter weekend.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wonder how this will turn out...

America's top Catholic military bishop rebukes Trump's Iran war as he delivers explosive Easter warning​

America's most senior Catholic military cleric has warned that Donald Trump's Iran war is unjustified and suggested troops should avoid following orders.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, head of the Archdiocese for the Military Services and one of America's most conservative bishops, called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's invocations of Jesus Christ to justify the war 'problematic.'

Broglio said Trump's strikes on Iran were not justified under Saint Augustine's just war theory, in an interview set to air on CBS's Face the Nation on Easter Sunday.

The theory holds that war is only morally permissible when punishing wrongdoing or defending the innocent, and always with the ultimate aim of restoring peace rather than for revenge or conquest.

The bishop said the administration's justification rested on the threat of nuclear weapons - which Iran does not possess.

'While there was a threat with nuclear arms, it's compensating for a threat before the threat is actually realized,' Broglio said.

He urged troops to minimize harm in carrying out their orders, while acknowledging that lower ranks would not be in a position to disobey commands unless they 'were clearly immoral.'

'The question might be would generals or admirals have space to perhaps say, "Can we look at this a different way," but having spoken to some of them, they are also in the same dilemma,' Broglio said. 'So my counsel would be to do as little harm as you can and to try and preserve innocent lives.'

America's top army bishop slams Trump's war: Explosive Easter warning

Archbishop Timothy Broglio called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's invocations of Jesus Christ to justify the war 'problematic.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[ytz]

Oh, gee, I guess they've won then. They have everything they need.

Who said they "won"?

I'm pointing out that projection of their losses aren't nearly as clear cut as you (and every over Trump apologist) suggests. Net revenue to the regime (not the country) may actually be higher right now. Let's be clear we're not fighting "Iran". We're fighting the Islamic Regime. And they don't care if the Iranian people starve.

 

[brihard]

OK...

Trump says Iran has 48 hours to make deal or U.S. will unleash ‘hell’

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mideas...-48-hours-to-make-deal-or-us-will-unleash-hell/

“48 hours before all Hell will reign [sic] down on them”.

I mean, at least we can reasonably sure he wrote this one personally.

Another wave of escalatory economic destruction in the region before markets open it is, then.

 

[ytz]

“48 hours before all Hell will reign [sic] down on them”.

I mean, at least we can reasonably sure he wrote this one personally.

Another wave of escalatory economic destruction in the region before markets open it is, then.

I honestly don't see any rewarding options here beyond grabbing Kharg and hoping that the cut of revenue forces the regime to the bargaining table. What other leverage does the US have?

 

[daftandbarmy]

I honestly don't see any rewarding options here beyond grabbing Kharg and hoping that the cut of revenue forces the regime to the bargaining table. What other leverage does the US have?

The only real leverage they have is economic.

A deep discount on oil and gas, if purchased from the US vs. Iran, might be an interesting flex...

 

[brihard]

I honestly don't see any rewarding options here beyond grabbing Kharg and hoping that the cut of revenue forces the regime to the bargaining table. What other leverage does the US have?

Any moves that completely restrict Iran’s oil exports puts the U.S. on the wrong side of China quickly, and China has a lot of leverage. The U.S. isn’t in a good spot to play raw resource denial games with them. Bear in mind that this entire month we haven’t seen the U.S. seizing sanctioned tankers of Iranian oil leaving the Gulf. There are significantly more layers to this than merely the ability to sink or board vessels in the Strait.

And, as previously discussed, seizing Kharg leaves a lot of U.S. troops rather exposed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Accelerated their electrification and reopened coal plants to reduce imports while creating new markets for their renewables. Watched the US (and Gulf allies) massively deplete interceptor and high end PGM stockpiles while their production is ramping up, ensuring that at least have the upper hand on numbers probably for the next few years.

Also not convinced this isn't turning into a strategic economic gain the more the Iranians demand their ransom in RMB.

Lastly, isn't oil from Venezuela still going to China after paying the Trump slush fund tax?

My thoughts on the implications for China:

To start, I believe China’s main strategic objectives are:

1. Stability and perpetuation of their current political regime.
2. Capture and integration of Taiwan with mainland China.
3. Regional economic dominance and military leverage
4. Global economic integration and leverage.

Essentially they want to own their region of Southeast Asia, subject to the realistic constraints imposed by rival powers. Their strategy, I believe, is to leverage their autocratic system to maintain campaign plans much longer than those western democracies can. In this long game approach they will buy whatever they can, and finance as much else as they’re able so that they firmly control resource and trade flows. Where they can extend this reach globally, they will. Somewhere in all this they’ll invade Taiwan.

So that said- Iran (and I guess Venezuela) as it pertains to China:

1. China’s biggest geopolitical foil is the United States and the systems of alliances and relations it maintains. America’s hamfisted approach to Iran, in the context of its increasingly abusive treatment of allies and trading partners, weakens the counterbalance to China. China, without having to change a thing, comes out looking relatively more reasonable, reliable, and predictable than it did before because Americas has become less these things. China becomes relatively more attractive than it was as a trade partner and diplomatic alignment.

2. The destruction within Iran provides massive opportunity for China to flood in capital to rebuild industry and infrastructure. Those familiar with the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative will see in this economic opportunity that China loves to exploit. Help another country build, and do it on terms where now they owe you and are beholden to you. To a lesser extent some of this opportunity may be found in other Gulf states too.

3. China already enjoyed access to Iranian oil at a discount. This will remain the case subject to necessary rebuilding.

4. China is benefitting from a real life torture test of American IADS and other combat systems. From Iran’s attacks on the region, China will learn some things applicable to an eventual assault on Taiwan. Everything from the performance and vulnerability of individual systems, to the economics of flooding a system with cheap munitions to attrition it and empty magazines. While much of this could be theorized, China gets to observe a natural experiment play out.

5. Depletion of American munitions stocks will create a short to mid term window of opportunity for aggression against Taiwan. Doesn’t mean they’ll take it, but everyone will know it’s there, and that’s leverage.

6. Current American capabilities are being laid bare to a certain extent. How they fight, what works, what has soft spots. Some outright weaknesses.

7. China is suffering somewhat from the short term impact on oil and other commodity markets. But, as a supplier of some finished/refined products to other regional countries, China is seeing how those countries respond to shortages. This helps China understand and calibrate their own leverage. (”We regret your comments regarding our operations in the vicinity of our wayward province, and note with concern your logistical support to the United States. Now, moving on. If you turn to page six you’ll note that urgent maintenance will force offline some of our refineries in the coming days. Regrettably…”)

Anyway, some Saturday morning coffee thoughts as I sit here between diaper changes.

I suggest we will probably never know. We can slag different Govs all we want but I think some humble pie is required in that we don't have sweet clue about what game of chess is actually afoot. And perhaps some politicians don't either.

But I think it has shown two things:

(1) China imports too much energy, I expect they will work fix that; and

(2) The straights of Taiwan would be a ship graveyard in a shooting war. Drones, drones drones.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Who said they "won"?

I'm pointing out that projection of their losses aren't nearly as clear cut as you (and every over Trump apologist) suggests. Net revenue to the regime (not the country) may actually be higher right now. Let's be clear we're not fighting "Iran". We're fighting the Islamic Regime. And they don't care if the Iranian people starve.

I think the media is harping on just the "tranist fees" and fail to see the other losses to the Iranian economy, as you and I mentioned, the loss of UAE as a financial hub is a huge blow and I suspect a lot of the personal wealth of the IRGC is stranded, as is a lot of the remaining cash for Iran to fight this war and pay their foot soldiers. I suspect things are more dire for them than most realize.

But to win this, we need to get small arms and communication devices into the hands of the Persian resistance.

 

[Brad Sallows]

OK...

Trump says Iran has 48 hours to make deal or U.S. will unleash ‘hell’

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/mideas...-48-hours-to-make-deal-or-us-will-unleash-hell/

Didn't he do that four weeks ago?

 

[Brad Sallows]

I wonder how this will turn out...

Empty plea. Soldiers are responsible for jus in bello, not jus ad bellum.

 

[PrairieFella]

I think the media is harping on just the "tranist fees" and fail to see the other losses to the Iranian economy, as you and I mentioned, the loss of UAE as a financial hub is a huge blow and I suspect a lot of the personal wealth of the IRGC is stranded, as is a lot of the remaining cash for Iran to fight this war and pay their foot soldiers. I suspect things are more dire for them than most realize.

But to win this, we need to get small arms and communication devices into the hands of the Persian resistance.

What resistance? They died months ago.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Any moves that completely restrict Iran’s oil exports puts the U.S. on the wrong side of China quickly, and China has a lot of leverage. The U.S. isn’t in a good spot to play raw resource denial games with them. Bear in mind that this entire month we haven’t seen the U.S. seizing sanctioned tankers of Iranian oil leaving the Gulf. There are significantly more layers to this than merely the ability to sink or board vessels in the Strait.

As you say. On the one hand, a tightening of oil (shipping interruption and facility destruction) was practically inevitable. On the other hand, sanctions. In between: compromising one to ease the political strains caused by another.

 

[Brad Sallows]

But to win this, we need to get small arms and communication devices into the hands of the Persian resistance.

I suppose the only practical resistance is for the non-IRGC armed forces to overthrow the IRGC-backed government. Even a secular military dictatorship with no particular axe to grind against Israel might be a remarkable improvement, and a step on the path to something better.

 

[lenaitch]

They aspire to be a big fish in their pond, meddling with neighbours in general and pursuing a religious grudge match with Israel in particular.

Until the last clause, I wasn't sure which country you were talking about.

Didn't he do that four weeks ago?

It seems every couple of days now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What resistance? They died months ago.

They are still there and slowly forming and striking, but are poorly armed and not able to go toe to toe with the militias. that is the Persians, the Kurds and Baloch's are better armed and the police/militia's need to operate in larger number to control them.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I suggest we will probably never know. We can slag different Govs all we want but I think some humble pie is required in that we don't have sweet clue about what game of chess is actually afoot. And perhaps some politicians don't either.

Popular hypothesis: the US is behaving foolishly.

Complication: on balance of probability, this war was prompted by Israel and Israel convinced the US (or perhaps the US convinced itself) to go along. Either Israel did or did not share information with the US, and the latter seems highly unlikely.

Is either of these probable: Israel is also behaving foolishly; Israel is behaving rationally and the US is behaving foolishly.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Until the last clause, I wasn't sure which country you were talking about.

To be fair, the US is already a big fish in any pond it enters. It certainly is meddlesome.

 

[ytz]

Israel is behaving rationally and the US is behaving foolishly.

Mostly this one IMO. Israel has shopped this war to American Presidents as far back as Clinton. They all looked it over, got the Int brief from the USIC and moved on. But now that the US has a President who famously doesn't read and doesn't trust the USIC, the Israelis got lucky.

The calculus is very different. Israel isn't economically exposed to the Gulf. The US can be less exposed, but doing so is also economically costly in the long term. So they have different interests. Trump is probably starting to understand that now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The calculus is very different. Israel isn't economically exposed to the Gulf. The US can be less exposed, but doing so is also economically costly in the long term. So they have different interests. Trump is probably starting to understand that now.

There's a huge cloud-shaped diagram accompanied by hand-waving between the fact that the US isn't really one of the exposed countries and that costs are going to fall somewhere.

When status quo is upset, inevitably some are forced or decide to adjust. Trump upset status quo when he opted to kill Soleimani rather than some miscellaneous Iranian soldiers or proxies. Iran has most likely recalculated its thresholds for attacking American interests.

Hamas upset status quo (eg. suicide bombings, rocket artillery barrages, Israeli counter-operations) with its exceptionally brutal 2023 attack. The Israeli response was also exceptional. Maybe this current round of hostilities is all about Iran's nuclear program, but maybe it's partly about letting the Iranian government know that from now on it, and not just its useful idiot proxies, is highly liable for what the latter do. Iran might recalculate its operations against Israel.

Almost everyone else was satisfied with the status quo in which the costs of Iran's trouble-making were borne by only a few: Israel, Lebanon, the US. Israel and the US have changed their status quo with Iran. In its attempts to mitigate the resulting disaster, thinking it can bring indirect pressure to bear on the US, Iran is changing its status quo with its Persian Gulf neighbours and their customers.

New status quo could include shipping customers paying protection money; it isn't the only place in the world this could happen. Those costs will be borne by consumers. The currency in which bribes are paid doesn't matter.